https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #9 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
> Unfortunately, although the patch solves the problem but it adds 2 x86-64
> failures of tests expecting smaller number of moves. It also adds 2
> failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina ---
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for working on it!
We've been trying to reduce the different cases where we see this happening in
the hopes to provide more data to tune any possible heuristics.
So the pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I worked on this issue this week. I tried several approaches. I added the best
patch as an attachment. The patch changes an order of coloring allocnos in one
thread.
Unfortunately, although the patch s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Created attachment 60488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60488&action=edit
Patch solving the PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-01-24
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I think this is the same as PR 82237.
>
> Or at least related.
I'm not sure, in this one the instructions hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is the same as PR 82237.
Or at least related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118611
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Depe
